Full Committee Consideration of s. 921 (Jackson and Fannin, by request)

HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH., CHAIRMAN
Alan Bible, Nev. Paul J. Fannin, Ariz.
Frank Church, Idaho Clifford P. Hansen, WYO,
Lee Metcalf, Mont. Mark O. Hatfield, Oreg.
J. Bennett Johnston, JR., LA,, JAMES L. BUCKLEY, N,Y.
James Abourezk, S. DAK. James A. McClure, Idaho. Floyd K. Haskell, COLO, Dewey F. Bartlett, OKLA. Gaylord Nelson, Wis. Jerry T. Verkler, Staff Director.
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C. Z0510
September 12, 1973
MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Committee
FROM: Senator Floyd Haskell, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Public Lands
RE: Full Committee Consideration of s. 921 (Jackson and
Fannin, by request)
On October 2, 1973, the provision in the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act which protects the 27 rivers designated for study
from water resource projects expires. The administration
has submitted a bill to, among other things, extend the protection
period until October 2, 1978 --the date by which
the river studies must be completed. As only one of the 27
studies has been completed and submitted to Congress, it is
urgent that the protection be extended.
Given this urgency and as S. 921 has been reported unanimously
from the Public Lands Subcommittee and is pending on
the full committee calendar, I propose to ask the Committee
to consider the measure at its earliest convenience. To
assist you in your consideration of s. 921, as amended andreported
to full committee, I have asked staff to prepare the
enclosed memorandum.
HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH., CHAIRMAN
Alan Bible, Nev. Paul J. Fannin, Ariz.
Frank Church, Idaho Clifford P. Hansen, WYO,
Lee Metcalf, Mont. Mark O. Hatfield, Oreg.
J. Bennett Johnston, JR., LA,, JAMES L. BUCKLEY, N,Y.
James Abourezk, S. DAK. James A. McClure, Idaho. Floyd K. Haskell, COLO, Dewey F. Bartlett, OKLA. Gaylord Nelson, Wis. Jerry T. Verkler, Staff Director
United States Senate COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR ANO INSULAR AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, O.C. 2.0510
Sertember 10, 1973
TO: Nembers of the Full Committee
FROl1: Steven P. Quarles, Counsel
RE: s. 921, as amended, re~orted by the Subcommittee on Public
Lands
s. 921 submitted by the Administration and introduced by
Senators Jackson and Fannin (by request) on February 20, 1973,
would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in two ~laces. In
addition, Senators Haskell, Hatfield, and McClure have offered
additional amendments to the bill. Please find below a discussion
of the existing language of S. 921 (amendments (a) and
(b) and the ()ropose<'l amendments (amendments (c) and (u)), and
subcommittee recommendations in relation thereto.
1. Amendment (a) (S. 921, as introduced)
- text
(a) In section 7 (b) (i) delete "five-year" and substitute
11ten-year u.
discussion
The original Act provided for study of 27 rivers for possible
inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system. A
ten-year study ~eriod (until October 2, 1978) was established.
Hm-1ever, under section 7 (b) (i), the study areas were ~rotected
from 1t1ater resource projects for only five years (until
October 2, 1973). To date, only three rivers studies have
been released to the public, none reported to Congress. The
administration has discarded entirely its earlier schedule calling
for compeltion ofa ll 27 studioes by the October 2, 1973 termination date of the protection period. A newer schedule prepared early this year called for completion of most of the studios by mid-summer 1974. However, this schedule is already outdated. The most recent schdule, prepared by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the Forest Service at the request of Senators Haskell and McClure places the completion dates for a number of rivers three to five years from now. To insure the continued protection of these areas while the studies are being completed, amendment (a) of S. 921 would extend the protection period for an eadditional five years so as to make it correspond to the study period (both concluding on October 2, 1978)
Subcommittee action
~:rhe subcommittee recorJIU.=nds that the full committee rerort
t~ois provision of S. 921, as introduced, favorably to the Senate.
2. Amendm2!nc (b) (S. 921, as L1troduccd)
- tr~xt
{b) In section 16 del0te '~17 ,000,000" and sul:Jstitute
"$ 3 7 • 6 0 0. 0 00 " 0
- d.i.st:ussion
Th•~ original i\ct authorized the ac.o:)rOi,).riation of not more than
~17,000,000 for the acquisition of th~ initial co~~onents of the
national wild and scenic rivers system. Some $16.9 million have
been appropriated. Amendment (b) would add $20.6 million to
the authorization (for a total authorization of $37,600,000),
tD3 amount which the Administration estimates is nacessary to
co~plete acquisition of the areas of the alght original ••instant••
rivers. (Attached is a schedule prepared by the 3ureau of Outdoor
Recreation of the estimated land acquisition costs (to date
and prospective) for the initial com?onents of the system.)
- subcom~ittee action
·rhe subcommittee !:ecom!Oiends that the full comcnittee report
t!lis [JO.r:tion of s. 921, as introduced, favornDly to the Senate.
3
-~
(c) In section 6 (:~) strike the comma after "donation" and insert in lieu thereof "or exchange,".
Am2ndment (c) would provide authority to exchange Scat2 land
0itl·1in a scenic river corridor for F2deral land in another area.
Sect:LOn 6 (a) noc-1 pe-<:;;1its acquisition of State land only by donation.
Senator Hatfield submitted thb amendment ai: the July
Hi, 1973 hearing. Administr<Jtion witnesses at the hearing
stated they had no objection to his 2roposed amendment. In
fact, they felt it would be helpful.
- subcommittee action
The subcommittee reports this amendment with recommendation
that it be discussed further in full committee.
4. 1\mend.":lent (d) (':~ro'Josed in oart bv Senator Has:<ell and in
part by Senator NcClure)
- text
(d) (l) (A) Stri}:e subsection 4 (a) and insert in lieu thereof
the following (new provision's language altered only slightly
from old):
"Sec. 4 (a) T)1e Secretary of the Interior or, where na tiona 1
forest lands are involved the Secretary of Agriculture or, in
appropriate cases, the two Secretaries jointly shall study
and submit to the President reports on the suitability or nonsuitability
for addition to the nation<Jl wild and scenic rivers
system of rivers which are designated herein or hereafter by
t~! Congress as potential additions to such system. The Presidc=
nt shall repm:t to the Congress his recommendations and tJrOrosals
with respect to the designation of each such river or
section thereof under this Act. Such studies shall be completed
and such rBports shall be made to tl1e Congress with res2ect to
all rivers named in su08aragraphs 5 (a) (l) through (27) of
this Act within three comJlete fiscal years after the date of
enactment of this amendment: Provided, however, that with respect to the Suwannee river, Georgia dn Florida, and the Upper Iowa River, Iowa, such study shall be completed and reports made thereon to the Congress prior to October 2, 1970. With respect to any river designated for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system by Act of Congress subsequent to this Act, the study of such river shall be completed and reports made thereon by the President to the Congress within three comoplete fiscal years from the date of enactment of such Act. In conducting these studies the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shal give priority to those rivers with respect to which there is the greatest likelihood of developmetns which, if undertaken, would render the rivers unsuitable for inclusiuon in the national wild and scenic rivers system. Every such study and plan shall be coordinated with any water resources planning involving the same river which is being ocnducted pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act (79 Stat. 244; 42 U.S.C. 1962 et seq.).
"Each re2ort, includl.ng ma:;>s and ill us crations, shall show
among other things the area included wi~hin the re2ort; the
characteristics '.vhich do or do not make the area a ,,,orthy addition
to the system; the current status of land owners~ip and use
in tl1e area; th0 reasonably foreseeabl~ ?Ote~tial uses of the
lan.j and water '.·:hich would be enhanced, foreclose<], or curtailed
if the area W8re ~nc·luded in th8 ·nation3l wild and scenic rivers
sy3tern; the Fc~de.-cal agency ('.vh..Lc~-'1 in thG ca.se of a river which
iz ltJholly or s,:..bstantially rNithi~'l a n2tional £orest, .shall be
the De?artment oi Agriculture) by which it id propo3ed tha area,
s~1o· . ..tld it be added to the system, De ad.ninistered; the extenC to
\.Jhich it is !?ro.~osed that such administration, incl•J.ding the costs
thereof, be shared by State and local agencies; and the estimated
coat to the United Stutes of acquiring necessary lands and intc.>
rests in land and of udmin.i.stering the urea, should it be added
to the system. Each. such report shall be printed as a ~enate or
Hou~e document."
(B) Strike subsection 5 (b); reletter subsections 5 (c) and
5 (d) as 5 (b) and 5 (c), respectively; and make corresponding
changes to all references thereto.
(?.) In section 7 (b)
(A) in clnuse (i) strike all after
thereof ••or the thrGe com~lete
"i\ct" and ins2rt in lieu
fiscal year [Jeriod following
5
any Act of Coe1gress desi9n2ting any river for potential
addition to the national wild and scenic riv~rs system,
Whl.chever is later, and"; and
(B) in clause (ii) strike "which is recommended", insert
in lieu thereof 11 the report for t,vhich is submitted 11 ,
and strike ''for inclusion in the national wild and
scenic r .i.vers system''.
discussion
Amendment (d) has the following three purposes:
(1) put a definite time limit on the studies for all rivers
designated for study by Congress either in the original
Act or any subsequent Act:
(2) remove the authority of either Secretary, without ever
reporting to Congress, at his discretion, to terminate
a study of, and remove protection for, any river which
Congress has designated for study; and
(3) provide that the President, rather than one of the Secretaries,
report to Congress on each river study.
The original Act provided a ten-year time period for study
of the 27 rivers designated in tl!e A'ct. There was no provision
similar to subsection 3 (c) of the Wild8rness Act providing that
"not less than one-third of the areas ... (shall) be reviewed ••.
'.vi thin three y~ars after enactment ..• , not less than two-thirds
within seven years of enactment ..• , and the remainder within ten
years of enactment ..• ". As noted in the discussion of amendment
(a), no studies have yet been reported to Congress and the most
recent schedule suggests that three to five more years will be
reql1ired for cOm[Jletion of some of the studies. It was pointed
out at the hearing that long delays in completing studies not
only endanger system status £or rivers threatened by development,
but also leave property owners in the unfortunate position of not
knov1ing for an extended period what will be the future of their
property.
A ten-year study period '.vas, of course, logical for the original
Act which called for 27 studies. However, future additions
to the study category will be done on a case-by-case basis by
separate Acts of Congress. Thi~ process insures the spacing of
s t:udies ~ In addition, as rr.Zlnifested in tl:~~ r~~cent sch2dule,
Gtudies of the origin~l 27 rivers also arc now spaced ~s tc)
d0grae of co~?lstion. As time requirements on staggered studies
~~auld not appear to be on~rous, part (l) of amendment (d) ?rovidcs
a three com?lete fiscal y~a= time limit on all river stuJies. The
time limit runs frorn the date of enactmsnt of any Act, subseq11ent
~o tha original hct, ~hich mandates the study of additional rivers
and from the date of enactnent of s. 921 for the 27 original study
rLvers. Tl1e ~ariod is based on fiscal years to insure three complete
rounds of appropriations for each study.
Presently, the original Act allo~s the relevant Secretary
to termin3tc a study of a river at any time and remove the ?rctection
of the rivur should he decide that the river should not
b2 included in c:Oe national wild and scenic rivers system. Contrasted
to this aprroach are the provisions of the ~~ilderness
l'ct vlhich require that all studies be com;?leted and reported to
Congress ;,ihether or not the recommendations are favorable or
unfavorable to inclusion of the relevant areas in the national
\·lildeJ::ness preservation system. Protection cannot be removed
from the areas under the Wilderness Act until the reports are
completed and submittc.d and "until Con·:JTess has determined
otl1erwisa 11
•
Parts (1) and (2) of amendment (d) take a compromise position.
They do not provide the unlimited protection provided in
the 1/ilderness Act,,but tl1ey do require completion of the river
studies and alloVJ Congress the opportunity to review the river
studies before releasins the river areas from rrotection. The
t-.,o clauses provide for comoletion of all studies mandated by
Congress. (As notc.d above, the amendment would provide a study
deadline of three fiscal years from enactment of s. 921 for the 27
rivers included in the original Act and three fiscal years for
each river added to the study category by Congress subsequent
to the original Act.) The protect~on period for rivers under
study is extended, as the Administratlon requests in amendment
(a) in S. 921, to October 2, 1978. Ho·:1ever, in addition the
rrotection is provided for the three full fiscal year study
r)eriods fo.r any rivers added to the study category if such perioJs
•·:ould extend beyo:1.d the October 1, 1978 deadline (which would be
the case for all Acts of Congress enacted after October 1, 1976).
These clauses do not afford protection indefinitely beyond these
cJeriods until Congress acts as does the ·,/ilderness Act, rather
they preserve the language of the or igina 1 ,•lild and Scenic Rivers
Ac:: (clause 7 (b) (ii)) ·,;hich extends the !Jrotection for not more
than three years to allow Congress to consider the reports. The
original language is amended only to com;;>ly with the intent of
7
t1v~ ur.1endrn,~nt to insur::? thct t Co!1gross rec8ives and ~,,;ill have
the three-year OtJ!'Ortunitv to deliberate on reoorts on all ~ t"' .... ~ --
the rivers it l1as directed to be studied, not just thos8
wbich the relevant Seerctary finds worthy of addition to the
system ..
Finally, to better provide for timely complet:ion of the river
studies, the resronsibility for rz~orting to Congress on the
studies is transferred from the Secretaries to the President. As
Se:-tator l1cClure ,oointed out in the hearings on S. 921, the ltiilderness
Act language v;hich placed the duty of reporting the '"ildern,ess
studies directly on the President was effectively evoked by Congress
and the conservationists in their effort to expedite completion
of the studies after early delays. It is expected that
p:covision of a similar responsibility for river studies >vill have
a similar result.
- subcommittee action
The Subcom;uitt:.ee recomnv;nds that the Full Committee report this
amend~ent favorably to the Senate.
IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Affiliated with the National Wildlife hderation
JAMII D. FILTON, President
Box 5!14
Rupert, Idaho 83350
Telephone 436-9360
RICHARD A. ICHWAR.Z, VIce Pretldent
Route 4 - lox 181C
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401
Telephone 523-6241
Mr, Frank Church, u.s. Senate
Senate Chambers
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Church:
MRI. IARIARA K •• ILION, Sec.-Treaturer
lox 55o4
Rupert, Idaho 83350
Telephone 436·9360
fll:iAfD
SEP ~ 1 1973
SENAT~ Ffl-ANK .CHi}Q
Upon request from Mr, Richard Small of the Arizona Wildlife Federation,
I would like to request that you support S-1296 Grand Canyon Enlargment Act,
We would like to also request that Jemsens Tank, Tuckup Point, and Slide Mt,
be deleted from the bill and that these areas be placed under BLM management,
Your support of this bill would be much appreciated by those of us here in
the Idaho Wildlife Federation,
_,...,._
James D, Felton, President
IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION
CECIL D. ANDRUS, Oowtno<
COMMISSION
ROBERT 0 THOMAS, Coout d'A..,.
'AVL C. KEETON, lewitton
JOHN EATON, Ct-1 IDAHO FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT
JOSEPH C OREENLI
01fK'
JACK HEMINGWAY, Sun V•llty
H. JACK ALVORD, Pocotello
September 17, 1973
POST OFFICE BOX
800 SOUTH WALNUT STRII
BOISE, IDAHO 837
The Honorable Frank Church
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Church:
Rfci.,vl?J
SFp 1! o 19i3
dVATOff
. FRifNK CHilflrtl
We wholeheartedly concur with the findings of the enclosed report of the International
Association Grants-in-Aid Committee that shows the State Fish and Game Departments are
having serious problems with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970. We feel it may have been designed to serve a purpose in
.. eminent domain 11 land acquisition; however, the Department of the Interior has
interpreted the law to also include our acquisition of wildlife lands with federal
aid, even though our purchases are made almost exclusively from a willing seller.
This has resulted in additional, unjustified, costs to our wildlife programs as
illustrated in the two following examples.
1. Recently, a rancher in the Hagerman area advised us his' 935-acre ranch, that he
had bought just a short time earlier, was for sale. We had an 110utside11 appraiser
determine the fair market value and the owner accepted the offer. We allowed him
to continue his use of the property for four months and residency for eight months,
free of any charge. Since we used federal aid (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) we
found he was entitled to relocation benefits. Even though he offered his place
for sale and accepted our offer, we still had to pay him 5,940 sportsman•s dollars
to relocate.
2. In another instance, we asked the owner if he would sell his small ranch that was
within the boundary of the Sterling Wildlife Management Area in Bingham County
for the fair market value determined by an outside appraiser. He agreed, and sold
us the 201 acres for $20,500, retaining residency for six months at $15 per month
for rent. After purchase with federal aid to wildlife funds (Pittman-Robertson),
we found that he also qualified for relocation benefits. We are in the process of
paying him $5,770 or 28 percent of the purchase price for benefit$ we feel were
surely considered in his selling price.
The 1973 Resolution of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners that
is enclosed also expresses their continuing concern with this particular law.
JESSE HELMS
NORTH CAROLINA
WASHINGTON, D .C. tO!ItO
October 9, 1973
The Honorable Henry M. Jackson
United States Senator
Suite 134, Russell Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator :
In my letter to you of September 18, I proposed that the Eastern
Wilderness Areas Bill, S. 316, provide for the completion of the Robbinsville
- Tellico Plains Highway in North Carolina by excluding a corridor
in the Slickrock area fron'l wilderness designation.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has recently
completed negotiations which resulted in its agreen1ent to a plan to
complete the highway along an alternate route which would not require
any special provision in S. 316. This alternate route, which runs along
Santeetlah Creek south of the proposed Kilmer-Slickrock wilderness area,
has been tentatively accepted by the Federal Highway Administration and
by those parties who have opposed the construction of the highway through
Slickrock.
It also appears that community leaders in Graham County, North
Carolina, the area affected by the :;.ighway, will accept this alternate
route in the interest of ending the delay in completion of the road.
Since all governmental units concerned and the local citizens
affected have reached agreement on the alternate route for the highway,
I withdraw my request for a provision in S. 316 which would allow construction
of the road along the original route.
I greatly appreciate the cooperation and consideration I have
received fron'l you, the other members of the Committee, and the
Committee Staff in my efforts to resolve the objections of rny constituents
to some n-ovisions of this bill. Thank you ve1·y much for your kind
assistance.
Sincerely,
JESSE HELMS: en
cc : All Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
Mr. Russell R . Brown, Professional Staff Member, I&IA Committee
'( j , ,
I

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH., CHAIRMAN
Alan Bible, Nev. Paul J. Fannin, Ariz.
Frank Church, Idaho Clifford P. Hansen, WYO,
Lee Metcalf, Mont. Mark O. Hatfield, Oreg.
J. Bennett Johnston, JR., LA,, JAMES L. BUCKLEY, N,Y.
James Abourezk, S. DAK. James A. McClure, Idaho. Floyd K. Haskell, COLO, Dewey F. Bartlett, OKLA. Gaylord Nelson, Wis. Jerry T. Verkler, Staff Director.
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C. Z0510
September 12, 1973
MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Committee
FROM: Senator Floyd Haskell, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Public Lands
RE: Full Committee Consideration of s. 921 (Jackson and
Fannin, by request)
On October 2, 1973, the provision in the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act which protects the 27 rivers designated for study
from water resource projects expires. The administration
has submitted a bill to, among other things, extend the protection
period until October 2, 1978 --the date by which
the river studies must be completed. As only one of the 27
studies has been completed and submitted to Congress, it is
urgent that the protection be extended.
Given this urgency and as S. 921 has been reported unanimously
from the Public Lands Subcommittee and is pending on
the full committee calendar, I propose to ask the Committee
to consider the measure at its earliest convenience. To
assist you in your consideration of s. 921, as amended andreported
to full committee, I have asked staff to prepare the
enclosed memorandum.
HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH., CHAIRMAN
Alan Bible, Nev. Paul J. Fannin, Ariz.
Frank Church, Idaho Clifford P. Hansen, WYO,
Lee Metcalf, Mont. Mark O. Hatfield, Oreg.
J. Bennett Johnston, JR., LA,, JAMES L. BUCKLEY, N,Y.
James Abourezk, S. DAK. James A. McClure, Idaho. Floyd K. Haskell, COLO, Dewey F. Bartlett, OKLA. Gaylord Nelson, Wis. Jerry T. Verkler, Staff Director
United States Senate COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR ANO INSULAR AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, O.C. 2.0510
Sertember 10, 1973
TO: Nembers of the Full Committee
FROl1: Steven P. Quarles, Counsel
RE: s. 921, as amended, re~orted by the Subcommittee on Public
Lands
s. 921 submitted by the Administration and introduced by
Senators Jackson and Fannin (by request) on February 20, 1973,
would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in two ~laces. In
addition, Senators Haskell, Hatfield, and McClure have offered
additional amendments to the bill. Please find below a discussion
of the existing language of S. 921 (amendments (a) and
(b) and the ()roposes and ill us crations, shall show
among other things the area included wi~hin the re2ort; the
characteristics '.vhich do or do not make the area a ,,,orthy addition
to the system; the current status of land owners~ip and use
in tl1e area; th0 reasonably foreseeabl~ ?Ote~tial uses of the
lan.j and water '.·:hich would be enhanced, foreclose
rests in land and of udmin.i.stering the urea, should it be added
to the system. Each. such report shall be printed as a ~enate or
Hou~e document."
(B) Strike subsection 5 (b); reletter subsections 5 (c) and
5 (d) as 5 (b) and 5 (c), respectively; and make corresponding
changes to all references thereto.
(?.) In section 7 (b)
(A) in clnuse (i) strike all after
thereof ••or the thrGe com~lete
"i\ct" and ins2rt in lieu
fiscal year [Jeriod following
5
any Act of Coe1gress desi9n2ting any river for potential
addition to the national wild and scenic riv~rs system,
Whl.chever is later, and"; and
(B) in clause (ii) strike "which is recommended", insert
in lieu thereof 11 the report for t,vhich is submitted 11 ,
and strike ''for inclusion in the national wild and
scenic r .i.vers system''.
discussion
Amendment (d) has the following three purposes:
(1) put a definite time limit on the studies for all rivers
designated for study by Congress either in the original
Act or any subsequent Act:
(2) remove the authority of either Secretary, without ever
reporting to Congress, at his discretion, to terminate
a study of, and remove protection for, any river which
Congress has designated for study; and
(3) provide that the President, rather than one of the Secretaries,
report to Congress on each river study.
The original Act provided a ten-year time period for study
of the 27 rivers designated in tl!e A'ct. There was no provision
similar to subsection 3 (c) of the Wild8rness Act providing that
"not less than one-third of the areas ... (shall) be reviewed ••.
'.vi thin three y~ars after enactment ..• , not less than two-thirds
within seven years of enactment ..• , and the remainder within ten
years of enactment ..• ". As noted in the discussion of amendment
(a), no studies have yet been reported to Congress and the most
recent schedule suggests that three to five more years will be
reql1ired for cOm[Jletion of some of the studies. It was pointed
out at the hearing that long delays in completing studies not
only endanger system status £or rivers threatened by development,
but also leave property owners in the unfortunate position of not
knov1ing for an extended period what will be the future of their
property.
A ten-year study period '.vas, of course, logical for the original
Act which called for 27 studies. However, future additions
to the study category will be done on a case-by-case basis by
separate Acts of Congress. Thi~ process insures the spacing of
s t:udies ~ In addition, as rr.Zlnifested in tl:~~ r~~cent sch2dule,
Gtudies of the origin~l 27 rivers also arc now spaced ~s tc)
d0grae of co~?lstion. As time requirements on staggered studies
~~auld not appear to be on~rous, part (l) of amendment (d) ?rovidcs
a three com?lete fiscal y~a= time limit on all river stuJies. The
time limit runs frorn the date of enactmsnt of any Act, subseq11ent
~o tha original hct, ~hich mandates the study of additional rivers
and from the date of enactnent of s. 921 for the 27 original study
rLvers. Tl1e ~ariod is based on fiscal years to insure three complete
rounds of appropriations for each study.
Presently, the original Act allo~s the relevant Secretary
to termin3tc a study of a river at any time and remove the ?rctection
of the rivur should he decide that the river should not
b2 included in c:Oe national wild and scenic rivers system. Contrasted
to this aprroach are the provisions of the ~~ilderness
l'ct vlhich require that all studies be com;?leted and reported to
Congress ;,ihether or not the recommendations are favorable or
unfavorable to inclusion of the relevant areas in the national
\·lildeJ::ness preservation system. Protection cannot be removed
from the areas under the Wilderness Act until the reports are
completed and submittc.d and "until Con·:JTess has determined
otl1erwisa 11
•
Parts (1) and (2) of amendment (d) take a compromise position.
They do not provide the unlimited protection provided in
the 1/ilderness Act,,but tl1ey do require completion of the river
studies and alloVJ Congress the opportunity to review the river
studies before releasins the river areas from rrotection. The
t-.,o clauses provide for comoletion of all studies mandated by
Congress. (As notc.d above, the amendment would provide a study
deadline of three fiscal years from enactment of s. 921 for the 27
rivers included in the original Act and three fiscal years for
each river added to the study category by Congress subsequent
to the original Act.) The protect~on period for rivers under
study is extended, as the Administratlon requests in amendment
(a) in S. 921, to October 2, 1978. Ho·:1ever, in addition the
rrotection is provided for the three full fiscal year study
r)eriods fo.r any rivers added to the study category if such perioJs
•·:ould extend beyo:1.d the October 1, 1978 deadline (which would be
the case for all Acts of Congress enacted after October 1, 1976).
These clauses do not afford protection indefinitely beyond these
cJeriods until Congress acts as does the ·,/ilderness Act, rather
they preserve the language of the or igina 1 ,•lild and Scenic Rivers
Ac:: (clause 7 (b) (ii)) ·,;hich extends the !Jrotection for not more
than three years to allow Congress to consider the reports. The
original language is amended only to com;;>ly with the intent of
7
t1v~ ur.1endrn,~nt to insur::? thct t Co!1gross rec8ives and ~,,;ill have
the three-year OtJ!'Ortunitv to deliberate on reoorts on all ~ t"' .... ~ --
the rivers it l1as directed to be studied, not just thos8
wbich the relevant Seerctary finds worthy of addition to the
system ..
Finally, to better provide for timely complet:ion of the river
studies, the resronsibility for rz~orting to Congress on the
studies is transferred from the Secretaries to the President. As
Se:-tator l1cClure ,oointed out in the hearings on S. 921, the ltiilderness
Act language v;hich placed the duty of reporting the '"ildern,ess
studies directly on the President was effectively evoked by Congress
and the conservationists in their effort to expedite completion
of the studies after early delays. It is expected that
p:covision of a similar responsibility for river studies >vill have
a similar result.
- subcommittee action
The Subcom;uitt:.ee recomnv;nds that the Full Committee report this
amend~ent favorably to the Senate.
IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Affiliated with the National Wildlife hderation
JAMII D. FILTON, President
Box 5!14
Rupert, Idaho 83350
Telephone 436-9360
RICHARD A. ICHWAR.Z, VIce Pretldent
Route 4 - lox 181C
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401
Telephone 523-6241
Mr, Frank Church, u.s. Senate
Senate Chambers
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Church:
MRI. IARIARA K •• ILION, Sec.-Treaturer
lox 55o4
Rupert, Idaho 83350
Telephone 436·9360
fll:iAfD
SEP ~ 1 1973
SENAT~ Ffl-ANK .CHi}Q
Upon request from Mr, Richard Small of the Arizona Wildlife Federation,
I would like to request that you support S-1296 Grand Canyon Enlargment Act,
We would like to also request that Jemsens Tank, Tuckup Point, and Slide Mt,
be deleted from the bill and that these areas be placed under BLM management,
Your support of this bill would be much appreciated by those of us here in
the Idaho Wildlife Federation,
_,...,._
James D, Felton, President
IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION
CECIL D. ANDRUS, Oowtno<
COMMISSION
ROBERT 0 THOMAS, Coout d'A..,.
'AVL C. KEETON, lewitton
JOHN EATON, Ct-1 IDAHO FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT
JOSEPH C OREENLI
01fK'
JACK HEMINGWAY, Sun V•llty
H. JACK ALVORD, Pocotello
September 17, 1973
POST OFFICE BOX
800 SOUTH WALNUT STRII
BOISE, IDAHO 837
The Honorable Frank Church
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Church:
Rfci.,vl?J
SFp 1! o 19i3
dVATOff
. FRifNK CHilflrtl
We wholeheartedly concur with the findings of the enclosed report of the International
Association Grants-in-Aid Committee that shows the State Fish and Game Departments are
having serious problems with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970. We feel it may have been designed to serve a purpose in
.. eminent domain 11 land acquisition; however, the Department of the Interior has
interpreted the law to also include our acquisition of wildlife lands with federal
aid, even though our purchases are made almost exclusively from a willing seller.
This has resulted in additional, unjustified, costs to our wildlife programs as
illustrated in the two following examples.
1. Recently, a rancher in the Hagerman area advised us his' 935-acre ranch, that he
had bought just a short time earlier, was for sale. We had an 110utside11 appraiser
determine the fair market value and the owner accepted the offer. We allowed him
to continue his use of the property for four months and residency for eight months,
free of any charge. Since we used federal aid (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) we
found he was entitled to relocation benefits. Even though he offered his place
for sale and accepted our offer, we still had to pay him 5,940 sportsman•s dollars
to relocate.
2. In another instance, we asked the owner if he would sell his small ranch that was
within the boundary of the Sterling Wildlife Management Area in Bingham County
for the fair market value determined by an outside appraiser. He agreed, and sold
us the 201 acres for $20,500, retaining residency for six months at $15 per month
for rent. After purchase with federal aid to wildlife funds (Pittman-Robertson),
we found that he also qualified for relocation benefits. We are in the process of
paying him $5,770 or 28 percent of the purchase price for benefit$ we feel were
surely considered in his selling price.
The 1973 Resolution of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners that
is enclosed also expresses their continuing concern with this particular law.
JESSE HELMS
NORTH CAROLINA
WASHINGTON, D .C. tO!ItO
October 9, 1973
The Honorable Henry M. Jackson
United States Senator
Suite 134, Russell Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator :
In my letter to you of September 18, I proposed that the Eastern
Wilderness Areas Bill, S. 316, provide for the completion of the Robbinsville
- Tellico Plains Highway in North Carolina by excluding a corridor
in the Slickrock area fron'l wilderness designation.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has recently
completed negotiations which resulted in its agreen1ent to a plan to
complete the highway along an alternate route which would not require
any special provision in S. 316. This alternate route, which runs along
Santeetlah Creek south of the proposed Kilmer-Slickrock wilderness area,
has been tentatively accepted by the Federal Highway Administration and
by those parties who have opposed the construction of the highway through
Slickrock.
It also appears that community leaders in Graham County, North
Carolina, the area affected by the :;.ighway, will accept this alternate
route in the interest of ending the delay in completion of the road.
Since all governmental units concerned and the local citizens
affected have reached agreement on the alternate route for the highway,
I withdraw my request for a provision in S. 316 which would allow construction
of the road along the original route.
I greatly appreciate the cooperation and consideration I have
received fron'l you, the other members of the Committee, and the
Committee Staff in my efforts to resolve the objections of rny constituents
to some n-ovisions of this bill. Thank you ve1·y much for your kind
assistance.
Sincerely,
JESSE HELMS: en
cc : All Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
Mr. Russell R . Brown, Professional Staff Member, I&IA Committee
'( j , ,
I